Published 8:00 pm, Thursday, May 1, 2008

HURON COUNTY — The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Thursday former Huron County Sheriff Richard V. Stokan will not have to reimburse the county for court costs, attorney fees and/or any insurance premiums the county paid while the case was in litigation.

The case stems from when Stokan — who had been employed by the Huron County Sheriff’s Department for more than 20 years, retiring in 1998 at the age of 48 — turned 55 in 1995 and applied for health care benefits under a resolution passed by the board of commissioners in 1983.

The resolution stated, in part, that “the premium for the county employee health care benefit plan, as it may be constituted from time to time, shall be paid by the county for current employees … upon retirement from county service after the date of this resolution as follows, if an election is made by them to remain under such plan,” as previously reported in the Huron Daily Tribune.

The resolution also contained language stating the county would be responsible for 50 to 100 percent of the premium depending on the employee’s years of service with the county and age.

The 1983 resolution stated the county would pay 50 percent of the premium for a retired employee having at least 10 years of service with the county and being 55 or older. In addition, the resolution stated the county would pay 75 percent of the premium for those with 15 years of service and 55 or older, and 100 percent of the premium for an employee having at least 20 years of service and being 55 or older, or having at least 10 years of service and being 60 or older.

The county originally had denied Stokan 100 percent payment of his insurance premium, claiming Stokan was ineligible for his failure to meet the age requirement at the time he retired. The county also claimed Stokan was not eligible to reapply to the plan upon turning 55 because he did not remain under the county’s insurance plan after he retired at age 48.

In April 2002, a jury in Huron County Circuit Court found Stokan was eligible for 75 percent payment. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court ruling in July 2004, prompting the county to file an appeal with the state Supreme Court.

The arguments made to all three courts hinged on the age requirement and the language in the resolution stating the employee must elect “to remain under such plan.”

The appeals court ruled the resolution stated the employee would be entitled to health care benefits when they retired from the county, but their level of benefit was dependent on two variables — their years of service and their age.

“The resolution does not indicate that ‘current employees, including elected officials’ had to be 55 or over at the time of retirement in order to be eligible for benefits and that if one retired at age 48, like (Stokan), he completely forfeited his right to these benefits,” wrote Appeals Court Justices Mark J. Cavanagh and Hilda R. Gage in their opinion in July 2004 affirming the trial court’s decision in favor of Stokan. “Further, we disagree with the dissenting opinion’s conclusion that the phrase ‘if an election is made by them to remain under such plan’ constitutes a condition precedent that (Stokan) failed to fulfill.”

Stokan sought other insurance, from the Michigan Sheriff’s Association, upon retirement from the county. Cavanagh and Gage ruled he still was eligible to come back to the county plan upon reaching age 55, thus electing to remain under the county plan at that time.

The dissenting opinion in that decision, written by Justice Brian K. Zahra, disagreed with those rulings. Zahra said he didn’t believe Stokan could renew his participation in the county health care benefit plan “some seven years after he ceased participation in this plan.” Zahra continued, saying he believed the phrase in the resolution stating the employee must elect to “remain under such plan” must be given proper consideration. Zahra said Stokan could not elect to “remain” under the plan because he had left the plan seven years earlier.

Zahra’s reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in the court of appeals were the reasons why the Michigan Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 in January 2005 to overturn the lower court decisions.

The Supreme Court’s January 2005 decision included language sending the matter back to circuit court to reconsider awarding the county attorney fees and other costs the county has accumulated throughout the process, including the money it has paid for Stokan’s insurance premiums, and a$14,000 sum awarded to Stokan by the jury in Huron County.

However, when the matter went to circuit court, the court denied granting the county monetary relief from the premiums paid to Stokan while the case was in litigation, saying the county never filed a counterclaim and never was entitled to a money judgment. The trial court also denied the county’s request for sanctions.

The county appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals who on Thursday upheld the lower court’s ruling, saying the rationale advanced by the circuit court in support of its decision is sound.

“Generally, if an order reverses a judgment but does not contain an order of restitution, the appropriate means of recovery is another action for recovery,” Thursday’s ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals reads. “The Supreme Court’s peremptory order did not grant defendant restitution for the monies it paid.”

The appeals court upheld the lower court’s denial of reimbursement for court costs and lawyer fees because the request was not filed in a timely manner, according to Thursday’s opinion.